The High Court
Case Details
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRA No. 128 of 2002 (In the matter of an application under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code) Arjuna Mahanta and others ……. Appellants -Versus- State of Orissa ……. Respondent For the Appellants : Mr. Sasanka Sekhar Das, Amicus Curiae For the Respondent : Ms. Suvalaxmi Devi, ASC CORAM: THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Date of Hearing: 04.12.2025 :: Date of Judgment: 09.12.2025 S.S. Mishra, J. Three convicts have filed the present Criminal Appeal challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.05.2002 passed by the learned Special Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada in C.P. Case No.676/991 T.C. No.12/2001. By the impugned judgment, the learned trial Court has convicted the appellants of the charges under Sections 323/341/34 of the IPC read with Section 3(1)(x) of the S.C. & S.T. (PoA) Act. Accordingly, the convicts-appellants were sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the S.C. & S.T. (PoA) Act as well as for Section 323 of the IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.400/- (Rupees four hundred), in default, to undergo S.I. for fifteen days. 2. During pendency of the appeal, on the direction of this Court, the IIC, Baisinga Police Station has placed on record the report dated 20.07.2025 intimating this Court that the appellant no.1- Arjuna Mahanta and the appellant no.2- Ramachandra Mahanta have expired. Therefore, vide order dated 02.09.2025, the present Criminal Appeal qua those two deceased appellant nos.1 and 2 stood abated in absence of any application under Section 394 of the Cr. P.C. by the legal heirs or the next friend of the appellants. Hence, the present appeal is confined to the appellant no.3- Rucha Mahanta alone. 3. When the matter was listed for hearing, consistently, none
Legal Reasoning
treatment. On investigation of the case, the police prima facie found the complaint to be true, hence filed the charge sheet. 6. The appellants took a stance of complete denial and claimed trial. Hence, they were put to trial for the offences charged. 7. The prosecution examined seven witnesses to establish its case apart from relying upon six exhibits. The defence has also led the Page 3 of 13 evidence independently by examining one witness and relied upon Ext.A-(ROR). 8. The learned trial Court meticulously appreciated the evidence to arrive at the following conclusion: “9. The evidence adduced by P.Ws.1, 2, 3 and 4 show that the accused persons used stick or lathi to assault P.Ws.1, 2 and 3. The entire occurrence took place when the injured persons protested the ploughing of land by accused Arjuna Mohanta. The accused persons were annoyed when P.W.1 protected before them and then all the accused persons started assaulting to the injured persons with stick. Bleeding injuries were found on the person of these injured persons. According to the medical evidence adduced by P.W.7 the injury No.2 found on the person of P.Ws.2 and 3 were serious and their cases were referred to Balasore for better treatment. This shows that brutal assault took place in order to cause hurt. The injured persons went to the field where Arjuna Mohanta was ploughing the land. The accused persons used stick to assault, but nothing is found in the evidence of P.Ws. that accused persons wrongfully restrained the injured persons. I do not find any evidence as to where the injured persons were proceeding and the accused persons obstructed them on their way to assaulted or to cause hurt. The word proceed in Sec. 339 I.P.C. is confined to the case of a person who can walk on his own leg or can move by physical means within his own power. There was no obstruction to the injured persons so as to prevent them from proceeding in any direction in which they had a right to proceed. On the other hand it is the positive evidence of P.Ws. that these injured persons went so the land to prove cultivation of the land by Arjuna Mohanta. So no case is made out for the offence u/s 341/34 I.P.C. against any of the accused persons. 10. These accused persons assaulted to P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 when protest was made not to cultivate their land. While cultivating the land the existance of stick in the hands of accused persons was found to be probable and inaudible. They used the stick to assault the injured persons and to cause hurt. The ingredient of intention or that of knowledge must be essentially present in order to constitute the offence of hart as Page 4 of 13 defined u/s 321 I.P.C. such burts were accused when protest was made in the process of cultivation. The accused persons got once at the protest of injured persons and they used the stick at the very spot itself. The medical evidence adduced by P.W.7 goes to show that P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 sustained bleeding injuries which were possible with hard and blunt object. Therefore the case of the prosecution is proved against all the accused persons for the offence u/s 323/34 I.P.C. All the accused persons participated in common action and they assaulted in furtherance of their common intention. 11. As regards the offence u/s. 3(1)(x) of S.C. and S.T. (P.A.) Act is concerned, the injured persons are members of scheduled caste. Ext.3 is the proof for the same and moreover it is also admitted case of the defence as per evidence adduced by D.W.1 Ramachandra Mohanta the accused who has been examined u/s 318 Cr. P.C. The accused persons first accused them and then assaulted to cause hurt within public view. This occurrence took place near agricultural land, the place which is within the public view. So the accused persons intentionally intimidated with intent to humiliate the members of scheduled caste and it is an offence within the meaning of Sec. 3 (1)(x) of the S.C. and S.T. (P.A.) Act and all the accused persons participated in assaulting the injured persons like P.Ws.1, 2 and 4. 12. The intention of the accused persons to cause such hurt is very clear on account of forcible cultivation of land by Arjuna Mohanta. They might have some ill-feeling or previous enmity, but there was nothing on the part of P.W.1 to family file a case against the accused persons. The medical evidence corroborates the evidence adduced by P.Ws.1, 2, 3 and 4. So the denial plea taken by the defence is not acceptable.” 9. Aggrieved by the aforementioned findings of the learned trial Court, which led to the conviction and sentence of the appellants, the present Criminal Appeal has been preferred. Page 5 of 13 10. Since the present Criminal Appeal qua the appellant nos.1 and 2 has already been abated, I have examined the evidence of the prosecution as well as the defence vis-à-vis the appellant no.3 only. 11. In this case, except P.W.3, no one has attributed any overt act against the present appellant. P.W.3 in his evidence has testified that his father has been cultivating the land in subject being the family land. On 02.07.1999 at about 11 a.m., the accused persons were ploughing their land forcibly. At that time, his father asked them not to plough their land. At this, accused Arjuna, the appellant no.1 assaulted on the head and left hand of the father by lathi causing bleeding injury. P.W.3 further deposed that accused Ruchu Mohanta (the present appellant) assaulted on his head with a lathi causing bleeding injury. Similarly, he has stated that accused Bidyadhar has also assaulted his brother Gajendra Senapati. He has further deposed that they belong to Kaibartya by caste and the accused persons belong to the general caste. 12. P.W.1 and P.W.2 have also narrated the same incident, but have not attributed anything against the present appellant. Both of them have stated that appellant no.1- Arjuna Mahanta and appellant no.2-Ramachandra Mahanta have assaulted them claiming their right Page 6 of 13 over the disputed land. None of the said witnesses have deposed anything regarding causing insult or hurling abuse by taking the name of the caste of the witnesses. 13. P.W.7 was the doctor, who has examined all the three injured. Since the medical examination of P.W.3 is relevant for the purpose of the present appeal, his examination by the doctor P.W.7 is reproduced below for convenience of ready reference. “3. On that day at 12.35 P.M. I examined Surendra Senapati S/o Gokula Senapati and found two injuries as follows:- 1. Abrasion over left fore-arm of size ½ x ½ cm. 2. Lacerated wound over scalp of size 5 x 1 x ½ cm. Injury No.1 is simple in nature. For injury No.2 patient is referred to Balasore. Opinion is reserved. All the injuries might have been caused by hard blunt weapon. The age of injury was within 24 hours of my examination. Ext.6/2 is the injury report and Ext.6/3 is my signature.” 14. The doctor was cross-examined by the defence to bring out the fact that the injury caused to P.W.3 is possible due to fall on the hard and rough surface. 15. If the evidence of all the witnesses adduced by the prosecution is considered in unison, only the ingredient of the offence under Section 323 of the IPC is made out against the present appellant Page 7 of 13 because in the entire testimonies of P.Ws.1, 2 and 3, no overt act or intention is attributed by them against the present appellant which caused insult to the witnesses, as they belong to the S.C. or S.T. caste. No doubt, by bringing the documentary evidence on record, i.e., Ext.3, the caste of the witnesses P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 have been established, but in their evidence, they have not uttered a single word regarding the assault being made by the appellant with an intention to derogate or insult them, as they belong to the S.C. & S.T. Caste. 16. This Court in the judgment dated 20.11.2025 in the case of Pradeep Sahu vs. State1 has held as follows: “14. The fact of the present case is quite akin to that of Dasarath Sahu (supra) case. It is a fact that the evidence has come on record that the accused has caught hold the hand of the victim and drag her into the water and tore her frock from the front side and slapped her, which satisfy the ingredients of an offence under Section 354 IPC and also satisfy the part of the ingredients of the offence under 3(1)(xi) of the S.C. & S.T. (PoA) Act. But from the evidence of P.W.2, the intention part is not coming to fore to hold that the appellant is guilty for offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the S.C. & S.T. (PoA) Act, particularly for two reasons that neither the victim herself nor from the evidence of other witnesses, which is germinating from the record evident the act complained of committed by the appellant is with an intention that it was being done on the ground of caste of P.W.2.” 1 CRA No.94 of 1995 Page 8 of 13 17. The view of this Court is derived from the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment in the case of Dashrath Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh2. 18. In the instant case as well, there is no evidence brought on record by the prosecution to show that there was any intention on the part of the appellant to assault P.W.3, as he belongs to or on the ground of his caste. 19. Hence, the reasoning recorded by the learned trial Court in paragraph-11 of the judgment as reproduced above fall short of any plausible reasoning and against the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court. 20. Hence, I find no reason to agree with the findings returned by the learned trial Court finding the appellant no.1 guilty under Section 3(1)(x) of the S.C. & S.T. (PoA) Act. Therefore, the inevitable conclusion is that the appellant no.3 is entitled to acquittal in so far as the said charge is concerned. 21. In so far as the offence under Section 323 of the IPC is concerned, the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 7 are steering on the face of 2 2024 SCC OnLine 72 Page 9 of 13 record. P.W.3 has deposed that the present appellant has assaulted on his head with a lathi causing bleeding injury. This part of the testimony of P.W.3 stood corroborated with the evidence of P.W.7, who had found a head injury being lacerated wound over the scalp of size 5 x 1 x ½ cm. The injury opined by P.W.7 to be simple in nature, hence, the appellant is liable for the offence under Section 323 of the IPC. 22. Accordingly, the conviction recorded by the learned trial Court for the offence under Section 323 of the IPC against the appellant is affirmed. At this stage, Mr. Sasanka Sekhar Das, learned Amicus Curiae has submitted that the appellant at the time of the incident was 45 years of age. The incident relates back to the year 1999. Therefore, the appellant must be about 69 years of age by now. There is nothing coming to the fore on record that the appellant No.1 is otherwise involved in any other case. Therefore, he is the first time offender. Much water has already flown under the bridge by now. Hence, sending the appellant to the custody at this stage would have a cascading effect in the life of the other members of the family. Hence he prays that a lenient view may be taken while sentencing the appellant. Page 10 of 13 In view of these circumstances, learned Counsel prayed that the appellant be extended the benefit of Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and/or the Probation of the Offenders Act, 1958, considering the nature of the offences, the long passage of time, and their personal circumstances. 23. Upon thoughtful consideration of the submissions made and after perusal of the record, it is apparent that the occurrence took place over more than two decades ago. The appellant has already faced the strain and stigma of criminal proceedings for a considerable length of time. He has no previous criminal antecedents and is reported to have maintained peaceful conduct ever since. Having regard to his advanced age, clean background, and the long lapse of time since the incident, I am of the considered view that this is a fit case for extending the benefit of probation to the appellant. Support for this view may be drawn from the decisions of this Court in Pathani Parida & another vs. Abhaya Kumar Page 11 of 13 Jagdevmohapatra3 and Dhani @ Dhaneswar Sahu vs. State of Orissa4 wherein leniency was shown in similar factual circumstances. 24. Accordingly, in the light of foregoing discussion, while affirming the conviction under Section 323 of the I.P.C. against appellant no.3, instead of sentencing him to imprisonment, this Court directs that he be released under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, for a period of three months, upon his executing a bond of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) within one month with one surety for the like amount, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during the said period and, in the meantime, to maintain peace and good behaviour. The appellant shall remain under the supervision of the concerned Probation Officer during the said period of three months. 25. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal relating to Section 3(1)(x) of the S.C. & S.T. (PoA) Act stands allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.05.2002 passed by the learned Special Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada in C.P. Case No.676/991 T.C. No.12/2001 is set aside to that extent. The impugned 3 2012 (Supp-II) OLR 469 4 2007 (Supp.II) OLR 250 Page 12 of 13 judgment of conviction and order of sentence under Section 323 of the IPC stands affirmed and on that count, the modified sentence is awarded, as mentioned above. 26. This Court records appreciation of the meaningful and effective assistance rendered by Mr. Sasanka Sekhar Das, learned Amicus Curiae. He is entitled to the honourarium of Rs.7,500/- (Rupees seven thousand five hundred) as a token of appreciation. 27. The CRA is partly allowed. (S.S. Mishra) Judge The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Dated the 9th Day of December, 2025/Subhasis Mohanty Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASIS MOHANTY Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 10-Dec-2025 10:12:58 Page 13 of 13
Arguments
appeared for the appellants. Therefore, Mr. Sasanka Sekhar Das, Advocate, who was present in the Court, was requested by the Court to assist the Court in the capacity of Amicus Curiae. He has readily accepted the same and rendered effective assistance to the Court. 4. Heard Mr. Sasanka Sekhar Das, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellants and Ms. Suvalaxmi Devi, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State. Page 2 of 13 5. The Prosecution case in terse and brief is that on 03.07.1999 at 11 a.m., one Gokuli Chandra Senapati of village Janikadeipur found all the three accused persons were ploughing his land situated at Mouza- Dageipur. The informant and his two sons, namely, Gajendra Senapati and Surendra Senapati came to the land and protested the accused persons not to cultivate that land. All the accused persons got annoyance at the protest of the informant and his sons and they abused the informant. Accused Arjuna Mahanta assaulted Gokuli Chandra Senapati in a stick to his head and left palm. Accused Arjuna Mahanta assaulted Gajendra Senapati, the elder son of the informant and accused Bidyadhar and Ruchu Mahanta assaulted Surendra Senapati with the stick causing bleeding injury. So, the informant and his sons came to Baisinga hospital for treatment. His sons Gajendra Senapati and Surendra Senapati went to Balasore hospital for better